§ discipline
‹ Back

Mark I Bronzite & Another

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
BodySolicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT)
Professionsolicitor
Case number9848/2007
Date01/01/2007
OutcomeStrike off, Suspend - Fixed Period

Allegation / charges

Breaches, Client Money, Failures, Solicitors' Accounts Rules, Others

Findings — machine-extracted (anthropic-batch:claude-opus-4-8); verify against the decision

SanctionStrike Off
Suspension6 months
CostsGBP 91,500
Dishonesty foundYes

Two solicitors in the firm Windsor Bronzite faced disciplinary proceedings. The First Respondent (Mark Ian Bronzite) was found to have committed numerous breaches of accounts and practice rules and, critically, was found dishonest in misusing client monies - appropriating client H's damages (including altering a cheque payable to the client into his own name) and 'borrowing' client R's funds without proper authority. The Tribunal applied the Twinsectra test and was satisfied of dishonesty beyond reasonable doubt. He was struck off the Roll and ordered to pay £84,000 costs. The Second Respondent, found far less culpable with no dishonesty, was suspended for six months and ordered to pay £7,500 costs. Total costs fixed at £91,500.

Duties found breached:

Aggravating factors:

  • Dishonest appropriation of client H's damages including altering a cheque payable to client into his own name and paying into his personal account
  • Borrowing/misusing client R's monies without authority, independent advice or repayment of interest
  • Continued use of unjustified suspense accounts despite earlier SRA warnings
  • Blamed unadmitted staff members for breaches
  • Made payments to himself from overdrawn office account while client monies misappropriated
  • Provided a questionable retrospective loan letter as evidence

Mitigating factors:

  • For Second Respondent: limited involvement, far less culpable than First Respondent, treated as office junior, attempts to introduce systems blocked by First Respondent, overwhelmed by work, no dishonesty
  • First Respondent claimed ill health and stress, said he had abdicated his position

Documents

Source: https://solicitorstribunal.org.uk/case/9848/